Here’s a letter to the editor I wrote tonight. I’m a Clinton supporter.
I’ve seen a lot of brilliant political moves in my time but what Barrack Obama did tonight was incredibly impressive. Not only did he give a visionary and inspirational speech but he did it in the very same hall where the Republican convention is going to be held. Now when the Republicans have their convention at the same location the news media is going to compare and contrast it with Obama’s speech tonight. Obama has stolen McCain’s thunder at his future convention. As a Hillary supporter I have to say that Obama is off to a great start. Maybe he does have what it takes to win.
My Wife says she is so mad Hillary didn’t get it she is voting for McCain. Just think, I’m married to a woman who thinks gender is more important than the issues. Isn’t that how we got Bushwacked? People voted their religion instead of the issues. Are we now going to vote based on race? Sometimes I think we are much closer to Iran than we realize.
If I were a woman I too would be mad. Hillary got really screwed by the press. I totally understand where she’s coming from.
Obama’s razor thin win wasn’t a mandate.
He’ll have to take her on as the VP nominee.
It disgusts me to see how Hillary has been in this whole thing…especially now. I was a supporter because I thought she was the obvious candidate…she might be able to win…and then her being a woman was just a huge plus…it is time for a shift like that (a woman in the White House)…but as time has passed the particular person that Hillary is WAY overpowers any plus that comes from her gender/sex. I wouldn’t want Hillary (in specific) within 100 miles of the White House…so to speak.
The more I learn of Obama the more I like. I didn’t know him at all and figured he was the next pre-fab candidate. He doesn’t seem to be that guy. He seems legit…in a humble way.
Mostly, jeez Hillary would you just stop. I’m sorry if politics is hard or the media is rough…but, I’m not buying that you are nothing but helpless in all this…and some of what you have done in the last months is despicable in the context of what you are supposed to represent…now it is buzzing you are demanding VP and telling Obama he better not pick another female VP…nice. Glad to see that progress comes first…well, first RIGHT AFTER Hillary’s career.
You’re a Clinton supporter? Who knew?
I think the media deserves our greatest standing ovation for playing a major role in shifted coverage and implicit editorial in reporting. They played a great part in picking the democratic nominee. Please, around of applause!
I was a Clinton supporter because under the Clinton’s we had 8 years of peace and prosperity.
[duplicate]
Yeah… Except for that whole Kosovo bombing thing. Hillary sucks.
Glad that is over.
Even the Dems had to think it was a tad annoying going on forever.
Let the games begin.
Obama will lose.
1. there hasn’t been a northern democratic nominee that has won the presidency since Kennedy. (Johnson was from Texas and got the pity vote, Carter was from the south, and Clinton was from the midwest)
2. If he chooses Clinton as his running mate, he’ll lose the south guaranteed. No candidate has won the presidency without having a VP that’s from the other side of the country
Pres from North, VP from South
Pres from South, VP from north
3. if he chooses someone else other then Clinton as his VP, there will be a general feminist revolt in the democratic party and there will be a noticeable backlash against him come november.
4. race and religion will play a BIG role in this election.
I feel sad for him, I guess all he has left to do is pick his poison.
#6, I have lost all respect for the media after they played such a major role in helping convince the public that the Iraq war was justified. They parroted Bush, they parroted the White House, they were afraid to go against the grain and speak out against the government at a time when the public needed to know the truth.
Fuck the media.
If he does not take on Clinton, he will lose for sure.
If he does take on Clinton it will be a tight battle as many dislike Clinton in the middle and the conservative side. And they do need to get the middle and some of the conservative vote to win.
Cursor_
#7–mperkel==the period of prosperity you refer to was a bubble and mostly a coincidence brought on by Clinton not being able to veto a republican dominated congress curtailing Bill Clinton’s social spending. Now, agree with the above or not surely you don’t “credit” Hillary with Bills record do you????
That is credit by association. If you do that, I guess you disdain Obama for Reverend Wright as well?
Hillary showed her lack of honesty when waffling all over the place on the driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. We don’t really know what she is for or against because everything is formulated ad hoc for the moment. Not too much there to admire==but why do you admire HER and not “the Clintons?”
Her most persistent theme has been “I’ll fight for you.” but that is meaningless rhetoric. Obama pointed out she was so wrapped up in her failed healthcare plan she only wanted to fight for it and failed to make the compromises necessary to increase healthcare services we all could be benefitting from now. Again==what has Hillary actually done to warrant respect?
#13
Obama is praising how President McCain would be a like a 3rd term for the Bush legacy. Sure, Senator Obama do point out the similarities between Senator McCain and President Bush on foreign policy, but making the case that McCain is Bush is begging the question.
#14–tdkyo==the two most important issues, perhaps the only ones right now, are the economy and the Iraq war.
On those two points there is no difference between McCain and Bush.
No begging–just the portent of a continuing disaster.
#4, Rick. Well said.
#9, lou. Hillary has not conceded. The games have not yet begun…
#10, Joe. I also believe Obama will loose, but for an entirely different reason. He is going to be portrayed as too “haight-asbury”. Many Democrats think this is ok, but it’s not. Too many Southern and Mid-western voters are afraid of having a “radical liberal” in the White House. Whether he is an actual radical liberal is beside the point. Perception rules.
Then there is Wright, Tony Rezko, his lack of experience, his wife’s comments, and…
Worse of all, he would be a complete disaster in Middle Eastern Foreign affairs.
Let me repeat. OBAMA WILL BE THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN FOR THE US IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Read these articles to find out why. From the Christian Science Monitor and the NY Times.
http://tinyurl.com/5cdvy6
http://tinyurl.com/5uj9re
P.S. He is not going to bring Hillary on as the VP because she brings a lot of unwanted baggage – Bill. Obama is smart enough to know that two’s company and three’s a crowd.
#16–Ah Yea==got that crystal ball all polished up huh? From 1-100 how convinced are you about this “argument” as controlling future events? Just saw the review at the beginning of the dem nominating race, Hillary was out polling Obama by 20-29 percent.
Now, who is it exactly in America that gives a camel’s hump what fundamental Muslims think???
Interesting point, but totally irrelevant to the election. In fact, most “good” Americans would see anti-Muslim reaction as a good reason to vote FOR Obama.
See how emotions interact with politics??? Very few straight lines.
Now stop pimping for McCain–he is already a demonstrated failure. Seeking the endorsement of agents of intolerance. Won’t the Muslims hate that too?
Bobbo,
You yourself said, “#14–tdkyo==the two most important issues, perhaps the only ones right now, are the economy and the Iraq war.”
The Iraq war.
And as both the Christian Science Monitor and the NY times said, Obama as President will insure that the Iraq war goes from bad to worse.
Through no fault of his own, he will be completely ineffective, and in fact a huge detriment if not an out-right disaster in Middle-East foreign policy.
Or, do you know something more than these reporters from the Monitor and the Times?
I don’t think so, given your incoherent answer “who is it exactly in America that gives a camel’s hump what fundamental Muslims think?” Huh? What about every American who cares about Terrorism and the Iraq war? What about every American who lost someone on 9/11 or in Iraq?
Do you realistically believe that McCain is going to let Obama’s Muslim lineage pass? Wait for the Rush, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. parade to make this common knowledge.
Again remember, Perception Rules.
And so we have Obama, the Liberal’s Liberal, “God Damm America” follower, “First time I’m proud of America” Michelle, his “they get bitter – they cling to guns or religion” putdown, not to mention his lack of experience and lack-of-voting record, and now his Muslim Apostate status…
Now I know you are a “no holds barred” Rose Colored Glasses Obama supporter (and tell you the truth, I like him too), but even you cannot realistically dispute that he has a real high mountain to climb to get elected.
#19–Ah Yea==if we leave Iraq as Obama promises, there won’t be any Iraq war that matters. The surge is working because we are paying all sides not to fight. No reason this trillion dollar exercise in failure can’t continue that way. We pay the Iraqi factions to fight Al Queada. Maybe in a few more decades they will do the same on their own–who knows.
As to your second argument, I have to admit, you scare me. I forgot just how stupid and numerous the repuglican value voters base is. So–50% of the 2004 voters are against Obama, or for McCain. Add in the racist vote, and the hot flashes from the disappointed feminists and McCain could win.
Looks like it all up to Bob Barr to monkey wrench this back to Obama or for Obama to continue getting the youth vote out. Youth defined as anyone under 30 or with a college exposure, or knows how to check out a book from the library.
I think what you have to realize is that it is a close call. Not warranting your trumpet call of victory based on what Muslims think just yet.
Yes, scary. That’s a good word for what is coming up.
Maybe we should call this the “Election of Fear”.
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
I want Barack Obama to ask Ralph Nader to be VP or give him an important cabinet position.
#14 – thanks for illustrating, once again, the difference between opinion and reality.
It’s a matter of record that since WW2, the US has been more prosperous under the leadership of Dem presidents than Republicans. Bush Republikans just made it worse, faster.
#23 Right, because the economy was a disaster under Reagan, but utopia under Carter.
>>Right, because the economy was a disaster
>>under Reagan, but utopia under Carter.
Carter inherited stagflation from Nixon and Ford, and set about fixing it. Fiscal policies put in place by Paul Volker (during Carter’s administration) eventually solved the problem; unfortunately, Carter didn’t get re-elected, so he didn’t get the credit.
Bonzo’s vodoo economics had little to do with the continuation of Carter’s economic reforms.
Also, the oil glut of the 80’s (which Bonzo had nothing to do with) improved the economy.
In any case, whether you like or dislike Reagan or Carter, I think EVERYONE agrees that Dumbya’s financial policies (just like all his policies) have been an absolute abortion. The Chimperor-in-Chief and his puppetmasters have done more damage to America than all the wacked-out, dishonest politicians who have ever stained the American landscape.
That’s why it will be generations before a Repub ever makes it back into the Oval Office.
¡Si, se puede!
#11 are you superstitious or retarded? Do you really think that what happened in the past will ALWAYS repeat itself?
The New York Times had some interesting poll numbers. White middle class males voted overwhelmingly for Hilliary. This is the group he has to sway from McCain. It may be less now about race, than the fear of being taxed to death for some government handout programs. The ultra lefts have never realized that the more visible they are, the greater harm they do to the candidate.
I both agree and disagree with you Mr. Mustard.
Yes, Bush’s fiscal policies (along with the majority of his other policies) have been craptastic.
I disagree with you because I don’t believe the Dems have an answer that will work in the long run. More government is rarely the answer, and right now we have both parties pushing for more government. The Dems want more government to save you from yourself. The Pubs want more government to save you from…whoever. Either way, we have more government. Washington can’t balance their own checkbook, I don’t know what makes us think giving them more control is a good idea.
The republicans should be a party of fiscal conservatives and social liberals. Small government couldn’t care less if gays marry. Unfortunatly, they are the party of fiscal liberals, and social conservatives…while the party of Barbara Boxer is full of social liberals and fiscal liberals.
It is your contention that it will be generations before another Republican is elected president. I disagree with this. I think both parties are slap full of morons who want power for themselves and Americans be damned. We will trade off electorates between the two parties even more rapidly as time goes by. When one screws up bad enough, we’ll elect the other…who will go on to screw up. Lather, rinse and repeat.
#17, Ah Yea,
Both your links are to op-ed pieces. Presenting them as fact is disingenuous. If I want to read someone else’s ideas I would read the NY Times editorial page myself.
Your belittling of Obama because of Wright and Rezko show how low the right wing nuts have to go to find anything negative about Obama. Those even rank as credits compared to the shit clinging to McBush.
Karl Rove as an adviser.
Phill Grahm being McCain’s economic advisor.
Phill Grahm lobbying for the banks and changing McCain’s vote.
Wants to keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Wants to bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Votes against his own Bills in Congress.
Is for something before he is against something.
Strong Bush ally.
Supports the “War in Iraq”.
Supports Gitmo.
Voted to allow torture against Gitmo prisoners.
Too many “senior moments”.
Doesn’t support American troops.
Refuses to talk diplomatically to “certain” countries.
Endorsed by several right wing nut evangelical conservative christian leaders. The same ones that think all Jews will go to hell.
Friend of “Duke” Cunningham, currently doing time for bribes taking.
Friend of Jack Abramoff, currently doing time for bribing public officials.
Friend of Tom Delay, currently under indictment for corruption.
Backed and supported by Fox Spews.
Yup !!! Obama sure looks good after that. And that is just a quick list off the top of my head. Anyone else is free to add to it.
#19, Ah Yea,
… the NY times said, …
The NY Times didn’t say that. It was EDWARD N. LUTTWAK writing an op-ed in the NY Times that wrote it.
The Christian Science Monitor is not known as a scholarly or unbiased news source. Again, written under the reporters name, it is the reporter writing this, not the CS Monitor.
Please, learn the difference between fact and opinion.